Note that it was a woman that provided the following to the
Review. Note the distinction the piece makes between whatever authority there is in teaching, and the authority associated with rulership, which addresses the question Murcielago has raised.
Note that this piece states that only men can fill the role of gospel ministers, and women should not be ordained as elders, even though they can teach, pray, and prophesy.
I do not approve of the language that the Methodist author used to describe the alleged educational state of women in Paul's day.
CHRISTIAN WOMANHOOD.
[DEAR EDITOR: I send the following lengthy extract from a book entitled " Christian Womanhood," by Rev. W. C. Black, D. D., of the Mississippi M. E. Conference; published in New York, by John B. Alden, in 1890. It is the best and most convincing argument I have ever read on the subject, and deserves more than a passing notice.
MRS. H. W. PIERCE.
Though somewhat lengthy, we give the article entire, as we think the reader will be so interested in it as to wish it all in one number.—EDITOR.]
We have seen that Joel's prophecy, as interpreted by Peter, declares that in the Christian dispensation this gift shall be more widely diffused among women. . . . Now, is Peter's interpretation vindicated by history? Does the New Testament furnish any instances of women officiating as religious teachers? No one who is familiar with the Holy Oracles will hesitate for an answer. The New Testament furnishes several instances of. women who were religious teachers. Some of these receive the official designation "prophets," others do not. To the latter class belongs Priscilla. She and her husband Aquilla are always mentioned together, and "her name is more than once mentioned before his, as if to indicate a certain conceded and beautiful leadership in her person and spirit."
They were Hebrews, natives of Pontus, and were dwelling at Rome when Claudius issued his edict banishing all Jews from the city. They took up their abode at Corinth, and there Paul found them on his first visit to that city. They were tent-makers. ... Paul makes affectionate and honorable mention of them in three of his epistles, written at considerable intervals of time, 1 Cor. 16:19 ; Rom. 16:3-5 ; 2 Tim. 4:19. Wheresoever they took up their abode, whether at Rome, Corinth, or Ephesus, there was "a church in their house." On some occasion, we know not when, and in some way, we know not how, they endangered their own lives in his behalf; and the fame of this heroism was spread far and wide among the churches. Rom. 16:3, 4. Priscilla is nowhere called a prophet, but it is certain that she exercised her gifts as a teacher in a manner that was eminently honorable to her, and vastly profitable to the Church. Among the women of the New Testament she enjoys the unique distinction of having taught theology to a distinguished teacher of theology. The most eloquent divine of the age, whom Paul mentions frequently in affectionate terms, Apollos, sat at her feet in her Ephesian home, and received those instructions in the theology of heaven which prepared him to become a worthy co-laborer of the great apostle to the Gentiles.
Priscilla's case is only one out of many. Thirty years after Pentecost we find four female prophets in one family — that of Philip the evangelist. Acts 21:9. Now if there were no other scriptures bearing on the subject, we should have a right to suppose that these four Heaven-favored virgins were not the only inheritors of the Old Testament promise. The New Testament does not profess to give an exhaustive catalogue of the Christian workers of the apostolic age. Thousands served the Church in various capacities, of whom no mention is made. Hundreds of families besides Philip's [may be] contained prophesying daughters. Conclusive evidence on this point is furnished by Paul in 1 Cor. 11:4, 5: "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head." Commenting on this passage, Dr. Adam Clarke says: "Whatever may be the meaning of praying and prophesying in respect to the man, they have precisely the same meaning in respect to the woman. So that some women at least, as well as some men, might speak to others 'to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.' " Wriggle and squirm as they may, the opposers of female prophesying can never get rid of the force of this passage. It establishes beyond question the fact that in Paul's day it was a custom in the Christian Church for women to pray in public, and also to officiate as public religious teachers. Not only is this the case, but it is also evident that Paul approves this custom.
Let it be asked, "What were the reasons underlying Paul's directions as to how these female prophets should be appareled when they appeared before an audience?" In reply we quote from Spence and Excell: "For a woman to appear before a public assembly with her head uncovered was against the national custom of all ancient communities, and might lead to the gravest misconceptions. As a rule, modest women covered their heads with the peplum, or veil, when they worshiped or were in public. It would have been reprehensible boldness to adopt a custom identified with the character of immodest women." How it would shock a modern audience for a woman to appear on the rostrum barefooted! Almost as much out of place did it seem in Paul's day for a woman to come before an audience bareheaded. It seems that some of the sisters of Paul's day, being a little inflated by the large liberty which the gospel had conferred upon them, were disposed to defy public opinion, and appear in public with their heads uncovered. Now, in admonishing them against this practice, Paul manifests a desire not to put an end to their prophetic labors, but to give increased efficiency thereto. The spirit of his counsel is about this: Make the best possible use of your gifts. Let not your good be evil spoken of. Even in little matters, such as those which pertain to dress, so conduct yourselves as not to array against you the prejudices of any class of your hearers. Be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."
But it may be asked: "Does not Paul command the women to keep silent in the churches?" — Yes ; in 1 Cor. 14:34, 35, he says : " Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is
a shame for women to speak in the church." Now, how can this scripture be reconciled with the teachings of the scripture already adduced?
Let it be remembered that the obligation to explain the discrepancy rests upon the opposers of female prophesyings no less than upon its advocates. The following facts cannot be denied: During the antemessianic period women did prophesy. Peter declares that the Christian dispensation is to be characterized by a wider diffusion of this gift among women. Luke specifies several women who exercised this gift. Paul recognized it as a custom in his day for women to prophesy, and gives directions designed to promote the efficiency of their labors. These facts cover a period of fifteen hundred years, and evince the plans of Jehovah in both the Jewish and the Christian dispensation.
These facts stubbornly refuse to adjust themselves to any theory of the woman silencers. If, therefore, we had no explanation to offer of this seeming discrepancy, we would still be better off than our opposers, for we would simply leave an isolated passage unexplained, while they, building their creed upon an isolated passage, run counter to the general trend of Scripture. But we are not reduced to this extremity. The discrepancy can be satisfactorily explained.
It will be admitted by all who are competent to form an opinion on the subject that it is at least an open question whether Paul in this "keep-silence" commandment has reference to prophesying. Suppose we grant for the sake of argument that he does. We can do this, and still maintain our position. This we do on the ground that this command was to have only a local and temporary application. It cannot be denied that the Pauline epistles and also the book of Acts contain sundry injunctions of this character. For instance, there is an injunction against eating "meats offered to idols." ... There were those in the Church who, having been trained to a punctilious observance of all the minutiae of the Jewish ceremonial law, looked upon the eating of such flesh as a participation in idolatry. Thus the "eating of meats offered to idols" became a "bone of contention" in the Church. Paul therefore counsels those who had no scruples about the matter to abstain from such meats out of regard for the consciences of their weaker brethren. It was a question of expediency, not of right. Paul admits, in 1 Corinthians 8, that such flesh eating is not sinful per se, "An idol is nothing in the world. ... Neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither if we eat not, are we the worse." Paul discarded circumcision as a rite binding upon Christians, and resisted with great spirit those Judaizing teachers who sought to incorporate it into the Church as one of its permanent institutions. And yet, at least on one occasion, Paul practiced circumcision out of regard for the conscientious scruples of weak brethren. Other illustrations might be given, but these are sufficient for our purpose. ...
Now we hold that Paul's command about women's keeping silence in the churches, if it be applied to public teaching, belongs to the category of local rules that have their foundation in expediency. Christianity is obliged to adapt itself in some measure to national and even provincial conventionalities. For instance, the free and easy intercourse which exists between a Christian pastor and the female members of his flock in this "land of the free," would not be tolerated in China and other countries. A missionary in a pagan land might therefore at the present day very properly promulgate a rule of conduct for his female converts which he would not think of enjoining upon the Christian womanhood of America. We respectfully submit that it is a very strange procedure to regard such an injunction as this as being the permanent law of the Church, in the face of the fact that women had prophesied in Old Testament times, and that Joel and Peter declare that they shall do so more extensively under the new dispensation, and also in the face of the fact that both Luke and Paul himself recognize it as a custom for them to do so. The permanent law of the Church is given by Joel, "Your daughters shall prophesy." Paul's "keep silence" was only a temporary injunction grounded in expediency. All this is on the supposition that Paul in this command had reference to prophesying. This, however, we do not concede as a matter of fact. We think it can be established to the satisfaction of every unbiased mind that he had reference to something altogether different. To this task we now address ourselves.
In seeking to interpret the words of Scripture, we should always have due regard to the context. Now Paul's general aim in this chapter, 1 Corinthians 14, is apparent. A good heading for the chapter would be, "Concerning order in public worship." Practices had crept into the Church which produced great confusion during public service. Persons who possessed the gift of tongues took great delight in exercising this gift without any regard to the edification of others. This practice Paul rebuked. "In the church, I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." ... He admonishes those who have this gift to refrain from exercising it unless they themselves, or some other person present, shall act as an interpreter. "If there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church." Everything, he tells them, must contribute to the "edifying of the Church." Having discussed this point at considerable length, he notices another practice which created much confusion. There were at that time "diversities of gifts," prophecy, tongues, interpretation of tongues, etc. Now, when they met for worship, those who possessed these extraordinary gifts all sought to make themselves heard, and thus many were speaking at the same time. This also Paul condemns: "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation. ... Let all things be done unto edifying." "Prophesy one by one that all may learn."
He next touches upon the subject of interlocutions between the speaker and the hearers. This practice was common in the Jewish synagogues. Auditors interrogated the speaker, objected to his doctrines, and variously criticised his utterances. This practice very naturally found its way into the Christian assemblies. Hearers were not content to be hearers only. They catechised the speaker, and pronounced judgment on his teachings. In the Corinthian church women as well as men had begun to exercise this privilege. Now, since we have already shown the utter lack of facilities for female education, it is hardly necessary to say that the average woman of Paul's day, especially among the Gentiles, was exceedingly ignorant. Unseemly things were therefore likely to occur. A lot of female ignoramuses, tonguey, conceited, catechising each speaker, disputing with him, and ventilating each her crude notions, would not contribute very much "to the edifying of the Church." Now, precisely this state of things Paul had in his mind when he penned the injunction, "Let your women keep silence in the churches." He is still treating of order in worship. He prefaces this very command about women, by saying, "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace." "Let all things be done decently and in order" is the
keynote of this whole chapter.
The question whether God sometimes confers the gift of prophecy upon woman was not in his mind at all. In this very church at Corinth there were women who possessed the gift of prophecy. In referring to them in chapter II, as we have already seen, he not only does not command them to keep silence, but gives them counsels that look to an increased efficiency in their labors. He had already in this very same epistle recognized female prophesying as a part of the divine plan for the Church. Can any sane man believe that Paul changed his mind before he finished this letter? Did he contradict himself? He certainly did if he meant his command, "Let your women keep silence in the churches," to apply to those women who possessed the gift of prophecy. To all except those who have a pet theory to support, the apostle's meaning is as clear as a sunbeam. This keep-silence command applied not to those who possessed the gift of prophecy, but to those on whom no such influence rested; in other words, to the rank and file of the womanhood, of the Church. These he admonishes to refrain from unseemly colloquies in the house of God. ... This interpretation makes Paul consistent with himself, while the opposing theory makes him sanction female prophesying in one place and forbid it in another in the very same epistle.
We are glad to be able to cite so reputable an authority as Dr. Adam Clarke on this point: "According to the prediction of Joel, the Spirit of God was to be poured out on the women as well as on the men, that they might prophesy,—that is, teach,—and that they did prophesy, or teach, is evident from what the apostle says in chapter 11:5. But does not what the apostle says here contradict that statement, and show that the words in chapter 11 should be understood in another sense? Both places seem perfectly consistent. It is evident from the context that the, apostle refers here to asking questions, to object, to altercate, attemp to re- semblies. [sic.] It was permitted to any man to ask questions, to object, to altercate, attempt to refute, and so forth, in the synagogue, but this liberty was not accorded to any woman. Paul confirms this in reference to the Christian Church; he orders them to keep silence; and if they wish to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; because it was perfectly indecorous for women to be contending with men, in public assemblies, on points of doctrine, cases of conscience, etc. But this by no means intimated that when a woman, received any particular influence from God to enable her to teach, she was not to obey that influence; on the contrary, she was to obey it, and the apostle lays down directions in chapter 11 regulating her personal appearance when thus employed. All that the apostle opposes is their questioning, finding fault, and so forth, in the Christian church, as the Jewish men were permitted to do in the synagogue, together with the attempt to usurp any authority over the men by setting up their judgment in opposition." ...
Let it be remembered, however, as we have already stated, that the gift of prophecy did not imply any ruling functions. In New Testament times there was a very wide distinction between teaching and rulership. Woman was not represented in the apostolate, nor is a single instance given in which woman received ordination to the office of elder in the Church. They were not "to usurp authority" over men. Says Dr. Adam Clarke: "Christian women, as well as men, labored in the ministry of the word. Many have spent much useless labor in endeavoring to prove that these women did not preach. That there were some prophetesses as well as prophets in the Church we learn; and that a woman might pray or prophesy, provided she had her head covered, we know; and that whoever prophesied spoke unto others to edification, exhortation, and comfort, St. Paul declares in 1 Cor. 14:3. And that no preacher can do more, every person must acknowledge, because to edify, exhort, and comfort are the prime ends of the gospel ministry. If women thus prophesied, then women preached. There is, however, much more than this implied in the gospel ministry, of which men only, and men called of God, are capable."
Author
Topic: "Best and most convincing argument" printed in RH July 16, 1901 (Read 5629 times)
